Please visit and read this article for some good sound evidence!
http://www.creationists.org/patrickyoung/article05.html
http://www.creationists.org/patrickyoung/article05.html
Upvote
0
Biblical Stories that Support Evolutionary Science
- Thread starter Smilin
- Start date
Must have missed the sound evidence. This is simply a misrepresentation of what the actual genetic studies show. It is also interesting that while your source seems to accept the evidence that points to a common ancester (but still distorts it) they deny the rest of the science and evidence that supports an old earth and the out of africa theories. Why is that? If these conclusions are "dubious", wouldn't the conclusion about common ancestory be "dubious" as well?
A few facts on Mitochondrial eve.
http://www.geocities.com/ResearchTriangle/Facility/4118/misc/eve.html
The name Eve, in retrospect, is perhaps the worst possible name to give to the entity in question. I believe that this is probably the cause of so much confusion in understanding what the significance of this entity is. People think that this title has some deep theological or religious consequences. Nothing of that sort. Someone you come across who claims that the bible (or the book of Genesis) has been validated by the discovery of the Mitochondrial Eve, is misrepresenting the science---you should feel free, and even obligated, to tell them so.
The Mitochondrial Eve of 200,000 years ago (ME for short henceforth) is NOT our common ancestor, or even common genetic ancestor. She is the most-recent common ancestor of all humans alive on Earth today w.r.t. matrilineal descent. That may seem like a mouthful, but without even a single one of those qualifying phrases, any description or discussion of the ME reduces to a lot of nonsense.
The ME represents that woman whose mitochondrial DNA (with mutations) exists in all the humans now living on Earth. That does not mean that she is our lone woman ancestor. We have ancestors who are not via matrilineal descent. For example, our father's mother (who did pass on her mitochondrial DNA to her daughters) is an example of an ancestor who is not matrilineal to us. However, she did exist at one time and was probably of the same age as our mother's mother, who is a matrilineal ancestor of ours and from whom we got our mitochondrial DNA.
The term Mitochondrial Eve itself is a title given retroactively to a woman. Often (and as is certainly the case with the ME that we are discussing) the conferring of the title occurs many hundreds of thousands of years after the death of the woman in question.
ME lived with many other humans (men and women); she was certainly not alone. When she was alive, she was most certainly NOT the Mitochondrial Eve.
Upvote
0
Notto has already discussed some problems with the link while I was preparing this. I have some problems with that article as well. They try to make something of the apparent age difference between Y chromosome "Adam" and mitochondrial "EVE", claiming that it is because the wives of Noah's sons were not necessarily related. Does this make sense? How can there be any genetic diversity to "bottle neck at the flood" that would be different for Noah's sons and their wives. This seems illogical to me because all of Noah's sons supposedly have a common male ancestor at the exact same time that all their wives have a common female ancestor, namely Adam and Eve. I am not an expert in this area so I could be missing something but it seems this way to me.
For a more recent paper on mitochondrial and Y chromosome clocks see Tang et al. <B>Frequentist Estimation of Coalescence Times From Nucleotide Sequence Data Using a Tree-Based Partition </B>Genetics, Vol. 161, 447-459,( 2002). <B> </B>
http://www.genetics.org/cgi/content/abstract/161/1/447http://www.genetics.org/cgi/content/full/161/1/447#T6
They place the common Mt ancestor at about 200,000 year and common male at about 100,000 in Africa but the common ancestors are much closer outside of Africa. Do you think that the ark actually landed in Africa? I don't think the standard YEC line is that Noah and his family were Africans.
There is some genetic evidence that the total human population crashed to 5 to 10 thousand about 75,000 year because of the Toba Supervolcano, an eruption about 10,000 times the size of the 1980 St. Helens blast.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/1999/supervolcanoes_script.shtml
Another little problem with the ark myth is that humans should have more genetic diversity that most animals. After all most animal species bottlenecked to two or each "kind", so there should be almost no diversity. I think you will find that most species, let alone most kinds, have much more diversity than humans.
The Frumious Bandersnatch
Upvote
0
Notto, I guess I miss how Young ignores evidence for "out of Africa" theory. As I quote below, he shows evidence (sources are listed on his site) for why Africa may not be the common ancestor. Are you saying that maximum parsimony is infallible? Are you even saying that if you were a betting man, that you would bet the farm on the maximum parsimony tree? How about your child's education? A week's wages?
Anyway, I hope you understand, that I was just extenuating a joke there. I just want to know if you would agree that the author does a good job of raising doubt in the process known as "maximum parsimony."
Second, you say that he
Young goes on to state
So, we can date Eve back to Eve and Adam or Y-Chromosome back to Noah, thus making Eve older than Noah (as Frumious noted, though the reason Young noted it was to point out the flaw in the logic applied by evolutionists)
One question I had after reading the article: How do you answer or attempt to answer the circular reasoning of DNA mutations (molecular evolution) which Young outlines in the second paragraph of DNA and Mutations
My closing thought on this article, is that it is jam-packed with references, technical jargon and knowledge. It is not to be discarded without researching it, but as always, it is not to be accepted as truth on face value. I would advise anyone who reads the article, to probably read the conclusions first, then read the part(s) of the article that address their interest. Again, I am only a layman (with a strong technical aptitude and an appetite for knowledge).
Anyway, I hope you understand, that I was just extenuating a joke there. I just want to know if you would agree that the author does a good job of raising doubt in the process known as "maximum parsimony."
Second, you say that he
I see where he says
...thereby providing evidence for a young earth, but I guess I am missing the evidence for an old earth that he is ignoring.
Maybe that is what they are saying in the paper you (Frumius) linked to, but in the link I provided, Young states that Africa is in a multi-source tie (for second!) when using maximum parsimony: meaning Africa is not necessarily the starting point.
Young goes on to state
Let me preface my answer with the fact that I do not have a degree in a field related to Biology (or Genetics for that matter), nor do I work full-time in a position that requires such knowledge, I am merely a person who loves knowledge. Nevertheless, I would gather that the reason there is no bottleneck of genetic diversity at the flood, lies in the fact that we do not know the ethnicity of the wives. All of the brothers and Noah have the same lineage (which points to Noah at the time of the flood and explains, as Young says "...the genetic patriarch as Noah.") If all of the women had the same mother, there would be a bottleneck for the women, but we don't have "biblical evidence of any sibling or matriarchal relationship among the wives, so their genetic diversity would not intersect at the flood."
So, we can date Eve back to Eve and Adam or Y-Chromosome back to Noah, thus making Eve older than Noah (as Frumious noted, though the reason Young noted it was to point out the flaw in the logic applied by evolutionists)
One question I had after reading the article: How do you answer or attempt to answer the circular reasoning of DNA mutations (molecular evolution) which Young outlines in the second paragraph of DNA and Mutations
My closing thought on this article, is that it is jam-packed with references, technical jargon and knowledge. It is not to be discarded without researching it, but as always, it is not to be accepted as truth on face value. I would advise anyone who reads the article, to probably read the conclusions first, then read the part(s) of the article that address their interest. Again, I am only a layman (with a strong technical aptitude and an appetite for knowledge).
Upvote
0
Maybe ignoring the evidence was a bad choice of words, but he certainly is misrepresenting the science involved and dismisses the evidence based on his pre-drawn conclusions. He misrepresents that fact that the definition of ME is very specific and by its definition, requires ME to have had ancestors of her own.
ME is not a single common female ancestor and does not represent a single lineage that can be traced back to one person. ME is an ancestor who happens to have mitochondrial DNA represented in all of our lineages. There is a difference.
ME had siblings and these siblings "family tree" has simply died out now but that does not mean that they did not exist at some time. Until this dying out happened, the ME we identify today was not the ME then. The hypothetical ME has changed hands many times in history.
The ME data cannot be used to construct a "family tree" that leads us back to a single female ancestor. To try to represent it as such is misleading and misrepresenting the definition of what is meant when ME is discussed. Although it is unlikely now because populations are not as isolated as they once were, it is theoretically possible to have ME change hands once again.
There may have been many contemporaries of "Eve" who are also common ancestors of ours-- she just happens to be at the node of our common maternal line. If a consistent paternalistic society had existed throughout human history, (and nobody ever changed their names) we would probably all have the same last name; this would not mean that the first man to have this name was solely responsible for the human race, just that he would be at the node of our common paternal line.
ME is the most recent common ancestor. As far as the flood story, in order for ME to be the Eve of the bible, at least two of the women on the boat would need to have had children that still have relatives alive today. If not, one of them would be ME. Similarly with the sons of Noah related to Y-Chromosome "Adam". There really is no way to tell or to try to place the theoretical ME to an actual person in history.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-meritt/bible.html#onefemale
ME is not a single common female ancestor and does not represent a single lineage that can be traced back to one person. ME is an ancestor who happens to have mitochondrial DNA represented in all of our lineages. There is a difference.
ME had siblings and these siblings "family tree" has simply died out now but that does not mean that they did not exist at some time. Until this dying out happened, the ME we identify today was not the ME then. The hypothetical ME has changed hands many times in history.
The ME data cannot be used to construct a "family tree" that leads us back to a single female ancestor. To try to represent it as such is misleading and misrepresenting the definition of what is meant when ME is discussed. Although it is unlikely now because populations are not as isolated as they once were, it is theoretically possible to have ME change hands once again.
There may have been many contemporaries of "Eve" who are also common ancestors of ours-- she just happens to be at the node of our common maternal line. If a consistent paternalistic society had existed throughout human history, (and nobody ever changed their names) we would probably all have the same last name; this would not mean that the first man to have this name was solely responsible for the human race, just that he would be at the node of our common paternal line.
ME is the most recent common ancestor. As far as the flood story, in order for ME to be the Eve of the bible, at least two of the women on the boat would need to have had children that still have relatives alive today. If not, one of them would be ME. Similarly with the sons of Noah related to Y-Chromosome "Adam". There really is no way to tell or to try to place the theoretical ME to an actual person in history.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-meritt/bible.html#onefemale
Upvote
0
- Jun 18, 2002
- 5,650
- 244
- 57
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
Glad to see this thread back in action..
NM, I'll review your post soon.. in the mean time feel
free to debate with the others...
Please treat NM respectfully, he's new here and
shows mannerisms, courtesy, and a genuine desire to learn...
(I know.. a rare thing around here... huh?)
NM, I'll review your post soon.. in the mean time feel
free to debate with the others...
Please treat NM respectfully, he's new here and
shows mannerisms, courtesy, and a genuine desire to learn...
(I know.. a rare thing around here... huh?)
Upvote
0
NM wrote
Ethnicity of the wives? How can any of these people have any different ethnicity? Supposedly they all trace back to a single couple whose children married each other only about 1,300 years earlier. The idea that all of the diverse peoples on earth are descended from a single couple about 6,000 years ago makes no sense to me. Go to Iceland and see how much ethnicity you see there among the native people who are descended from a few thousand people in over a thousand years and you might get some idea of how much ethnicity could have existed in Noah's family.
BTW since Eve was made from Adam's rib was she a weird kind of clone? Maybe there was even less diversity than we think. Why did God use Adam's rib? Did He run out of dirt? Maybe he wasn't up to making a whole new person from scratch after all that other creative work. At least he must have made an extra X chromosome and wiped out Adam's Y. How could the mythical nature of Genesis be illustrated more clearly than it is in this story?
I notice you didn't address the point that many species of "unclean" animals are much more diverse than humans. All animals but especially unclean animals should show a severe bottleneck at the time of the flood. The genetic diversity of each entire "kind" should be less than that of humans since each "kind" had only two representatives on the ark. There are a few animals such as Cheetahs that show severe bottlenecks but most don't. Why not? Most animal species, let alone most "kinds" are much more diverse than humans. Why?
The Frumious Bandersnatch
Ethnicity of the wives? How can any of these people have any different ethnicity? Supposedly they all trace back to a single couple whose children married each other only about 1,300 years earlier. The idea that all of the diverse peoples on earth are descended from a single couple about 6,000 years ago makes no sense to me. Go to Iceland and see how much ethnicity you see there among the native people who are descended from a few thousand people in over a thousand years and you might get some idea of how much ethnicity could have existed in Noah's family.
BTW since Eve was made from Adam's rib was she a weird kind of clone? Maybe there was even less diversity than we think. Why did God use Adam's rib? Did He run out of dirt? Maybe he wasn't up to making a whole new person from scratch after all that other creative work. At least he must have made an extra X chromosome and wiped out Adam's Y. How could the mythical nature of Genesis be illustrated more clearly than it is in this story?
I notice you didn't address the point that many species of "unclean" animals are much more diverse than humans. All animals but especially unclean animals should show a severe bottleneck at the time of the flood. The genetic diversity of each entire "kind" should be less than that of humans since each "kind" had only two representatives on the ark. There are a few animals such as Cheetahs that show severe bottlenecks but most don't. Why not? Most animal species, let alone most "kinds" are much more diverse than humans. Why?
The Frumious Bandersnatch
Upvote
0
- Jun 18, 2002
- 5,650
- 244
- 57
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
and thus one of my first statements:
If you choose to accept the entire human race originated from a single couple (Adam & Eve), who were PROBABLY black Africans, but that's another debate, or if you choose to believe all mankind was truly destroyed in a Flood save Noah and his family and they are the origins of the human race.......
The ONLY way to explain the ethnic diversity of the human race...i.e, Asians, Polynesians, Native Americans, Europeans, Black Africans,,,
is by EVOLUTIONARY SCIENCE......
my assertion.
If you contend Evolution is a lie, from Satan, a religion,,,etc. etc.
then show me a different explanation.
I have an open-mind and I can be convinced if you can prove another mechanism.
Regards,
Smilin
Upvote
0
- Jun 18, 2002
- 5,650
- 244
- 57
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
and referring back to another one of my assertions (see first of thread),
the only way to accept the Biblical story of Noah's ark, and the diversity of animal & insect species that exist today...
The ONLY way such a diverse popluation of life forms found today could have originated from an individual pair of common ancester's aboard the ark is to accept the science behind Evolutionary Theories/Facts
Upvote
0
1. Specifically what did Young "misrepresent" in his article that genetic studies have concluded differently?
2. Where in his article does it say he agrees with the evolutionary definition of a common ancestor? The common ancestor (tongue in cheek) he is proposing is completely human and has nothing to do with what science endorses.
3. Explain why we should conclude Mitochondrial Eve is 200,000 years old when it has been experimentally determined that the Mitochondrial DNA mutation rate is not constant. New calculations have suggested that Mitochondrial Eve could be as young as 6000 years old. References 25,26 and 27 in Young's article prove this.
4. All of these population genetics calculations are based on the principle of maximum parsimony. Maximum parsimony says that the most parsimonious tree is the one with the least steps. There are several parsimony trees that have less steps than the one concluded as "out of Africa." If the principle of maximum parsimony is to be believed as a scientific method then the "out of Africa theory" is just that, a theory.
2. Where in his article does it say he agrees with the evolutionary definition of a common ancestor? The common ancestor (tongue in cheek) he is proposing is completely human and has nothing to do with what science endorses.
3. Explain why we should conclude Mitochondrial Eve is 200,000 years old when it has been experimentally determined that the Mitochondrial DNA mutation rate is not constant. New calculations have suggested that Mitochondrial Eve could be as young as 6000 years old. References 25,26 and 27 in Young's article prove this.
4. All of these population genetics calculations are based on the principle of maximum parsimony. Maximum parsimony says that the most parsimonious tree is the one with the least steps. There are several parsimony trees that have less steps than the one concluded as "out of Africa." If the principle of maximum parsimony is to be believed as a scientific method then the "out of Africa theory" is just that, a theory.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
After re-reading the article in question, I fully accept its conclusion.
"Adam and Eve are considered the parents of all biblical creation, but due to the flood, Noah became the father of all living by virtue of a genetic bottleneck. The science to determine genetic modification verifies mathematical common ancestors for all living men and women today. Scientific information to date also confirms a more recent heredity for the patriarch than matriarch. Both of these conclusions are not in conflict with the Bible but conversely, they should not be considered as a confirmation of the Genesis account either. "
In order to have this genetic study support the lone ancestor of Eve or Noah, it would have to be determined that this hypothetical common ancestor was the ONLY one alive at the time and that they did not have contemporaries and that she was not only the most recent, but also the least recent common ancestor (one in the same if it supports a biblical eve). It would also need to be shown that all humans who have ever lived have the genetic markers that are looked at, not just those living today (show that ME has not changed hands in the past). Until these two things can be researched and conclusions that show that it was a lone human that is related to all people who have ever lived, this should not be used to try to support the Adam and Eve or Noah stories of the bible. To do so would be to extend the conclusions beyond the supported data.
I would also fully expect the author of the article to adjust it as new research comes out, particulary related to the 200,000 to 6000 year dates given for ME's timeframe.
"Adam and Eve are considered the parents of all biblical creation, but due to the flood, Noah became the father of all living by virtue of a genetic bottleneck. The science to determine genetic modification verifies mathematical common ancestors for all living men and women today. Scientific information to date also confirms a more recent heredity for the patriarch than matriarch. Both of these conclusions are not in conflict with the Bible but conversely, they should not be considered as a confirmation of the Genesis account either. "
In order to have this genetic study support the lone ancestor of Eve or Noah, it would have to be determined that this hypothetical common ancestor was the ONLY one alive at the time and that they did not have contemporaries and that she was not only the most recent, but also the least recent common ancestor (one in the same if it supports a biblical eve). It would also need to be shown that all humans who have ever lived have the genetic markers that are looked at, not just those living today (show that ME has not changed hands in the past). Until these two things can be researched and conclusions that show that it was a lone human that is related to all people who have ever lived, this should not be used to try to support the Adam and Eve or Noah stories of the bible. To do so would be to extend the conclusions beyond the supported data.
I would also fully expect the author of the article to adjust it as new research comes out, particulary related to the 200,000 to 6000 year dates given for ME's timeframe.
Upvote
0
- Jun 18, 2002
- 5,650
- 244
- 57
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
Hey Notto..
Are you familiar with the genetic reasearch on the journey of man by Spencer Wells? I watched it on PBS, using genetic markers his research traced the actual migration of humans out of Africa...
Are you familiar with the genetic reasearch on the journey of man by Spencer Wells? I watched it on PBS, using genetic markers his research traced the actual migration of humans out of Africa...
Upvote
0
- Jun 18, 2002
- 5,650
- 244
- 57
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
Hey NM,
Check out this link:
http://www.pbs.org/previews/2002fall/joum.html
genetic field research by Dr. Spencer Wells that traced the migration of humans over the past 50,000 years.
compare it to your source and comment
Check out this link:
http://www.pbs.org/previews/2002fall/joum.html
genetic field research by Dr. Spencer Wells that traced the migration of humans over the past 50,000 years.
compare it to your source and comment
Upvote
0
Smilin,
Seems like the link only took to a page with a very brief synopsis, followed by a link to become a member to my local pbs affilliate. Anyway, I guess there isn't enough data for me to research anything. If there is any statement I would like to see more information about, though, it would be what they are basing their knowledge that man started in Africa (i.e. whether they base it on ME as we have been discussing, or some other theory/fossil data).
Seems like the link only took to a page with a very brief synopsis, followed by a link to become a member to my local pbs affilliate. Anyway, I guess there isn't enough data for me to research anything. If there is any statement I would like to see more information about, though, it would be what they are basing their knowledge that man started in Africa (i.e. whether they base it on ME as we have been discussing, or some other theory/fossil data).
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
- Jun 18, 2002
- 5,650
- 244
- 57
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
yeah NM,
unless you watched it on PBS, I can't find
a full documentary of it on the web..
guess it's a book marketing thing...
If I find more, I'll re-post... (still searching)
His book is just out..the documentary/research was FASCINATING..
It's definately on my TO READ list...
unless you watched it on PBS, I can't find
a full documentary of it on the web..
guess it's a book marketing thing...
If I find more, I'll re-post... (still searching)
His book is just out..the documentary/research was FASCINATING..
It's definately on my TO READ list...
Upvote
0
I just watched a special on PBS today that talked about this. Even the Scientist (Geneticist) see that we came from a common ancestor. They say from that our ancestors come from Africa and I don't have a problem with that. Even the bible says we come from a single ancestor pair (Adam and Eve.)
Upvote
0
- Jun 18, 2002
- 5,650
- 244
- 57
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
And what's more intriguing is the exact migration routes of mankind have been mapped out of Africa...
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Similar threads
